Gun Control: What's your take? - FMVperformance.com : The site for all your Ford Mazda and Volvo needs
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 10:21 AM Thread Starter
F1 Driver
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,849
Gun Control: What's your take?

Since the other topic was asking this question, here's a new thread.
dinu01 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 11:49 AM
Le Mans: Prototype Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Hills, CA, US
Posts: 2,214
Gun Control: What's your take?

The primary purpose of most "gun control" is to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. To the point where in most places it's easer to get a gun illegally than legally.

IMO people should be able to have any gun that one person can reasonably operate. That includes thinks like full auto M-16's UZI's & AK-47's but stinger missles or or a .50 cal, is out.

Nor should guns be registered, in High school everyone should go through a gun safety program and get a "license" to buy & carry a gun, that license entitles you to buy any legal gun. Since everybody is licensed and there is no reghistration list the cops won't know who to visit if they try to impose a police state.

The reqason the 2nd ammendment is in the constitution is tp allow the people the means to overthrow the government if it becomes sufficiently corrupt. The fact that the Democrats have been trying to undermine that ability concerns me.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_________________
Lava Orange 5 Door 5 Speed

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
raitchison is offline  
post #3 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 12:25 PM Thread Starter
F1 Driver
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,849
Gun Control: What's your take?

And now for the (Eastern) Canadian perspective:

Ppl should not own guns since less guns = less gun crime.

Only in the US are ppl so set on defending themselves instead of leaving it to the police. It seems crime is everywhere and that by walking around w/out a gun, you're a sitting duck.
dinu01 is offline  
post #4 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 12:43 PM
Le Mans: GT Class
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver / Lower Mainland
Posts: 703
Set gun laws locally

Gun culture is different in different regions. Let's face it. One of the main fractures in this debate is between people in the cities and towns who see the degradation of society because of gang culture and people in the country who are frightened that they will have their deer rifles registered. I propose that gun laws be enacted on the municipal level so that each town can decide how these should be regulated. Even in the Wild West you had towns where the sheriff would demand that all guns be delivered to him when you visited and these would be returned when you left. This meant that people living out on the range could continue to hunt and defend their homesteads but couldn't wear guns in town where there was more chance for conflict, sometimes fueled by drinking or by grudges. Deciding gun laws locally would also take into account regional differences and attitudes. If you don't like the way a certain town is handling gun laws? Well move.

----

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
airchinapilot is offline  
post #5 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 01:16 PM
Grand Am Series
 
npaladin2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
Posts: 490
Send a message via Yahoo to npaladin2000 Send a message via Skype™ to npaladin2000
Gun Control: What's your take?

Ok, here's the deal. Most crimes are NOT comitted by people who have legally purchased a gun. People don't register, license, and buy a handgun and then go rob a Quick-E-Mart with it. The whole less guns=less gun crime is a simplistic, and frankly, stupid view.

Gun control, and stricter laws for guns will have exactly ZERO effect on the ability to obtain such weapons illegally, and put those who LEGALLY carry weapons for defense and such, at greater risk from those who obtain them illegally and use them for illegal purposes. In other words, that crook is still gonna have a .45 to rob the Quick-E-Mart with and shoot the cashier with, but it'll be illegal for said cashier to have a gun stashed under the counter and all he can do is stand there and get shot.

Oh, and raitchison, the Republicans are trying to undermine it too. What do you expect? They're sharing ownership of the government..they don't want anyone else to take that away.

2014 Mazda3 s Grand Touring 5-door, Soul Red Metallic
RIP: 2004 Mazda3 5 door 12/03-08/09, Velocity Red Mica

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
npaladin2000 is offline  
post #6 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 01:49 PM
Le Mans: GT Class
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver / Lower Mainland
Posts: 703
Your 'Red Dawn' fantasy

The ability to overthrow the government based upon gun ownership is a fantasy.

First, let's dispense with the Constitutional argument. Americans think it's akin to the Bible. Fine. I won't argue against that even though there are arguments that the 2nd amendment actually means that state militias have a right to exist. I am not knowledgeable enough to get into that.

Second, if you agree that the right to overthrow a corrupt government through the force of arms is a good thing, then Americans should then follow through on that based upon reality and advocate the private ownership of anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft missiles and the private training of insurgent ("terrorist&quot tactics.

Otherwise, it is a total fantasy that you can somehow overthrow the government based upon just the right to bear arms the way it stands.

Try this on for size.

1) An assault rifle is no good against armour or aircraft, which the theoretical corrupt government will have a monopoly over. So, you need to enlarge that 2nd ammendment to include RPGs, Stinger missiles, mines, recoiless rifles, TOW missiles, basically all of the outlay that a typical light infantry unit requires. Now, I've looked at a lot of weapons vendors on the Internet and a lot of this stuff is actually available to the right people. But when you're talking about the right to bear arms, just make sure that your neighbours know that you want to bring home an RPG launcher tomorrow and wanted to know how they feel about it.

2) A successful insurgency requires organization. Sure, one day you might just wake up and call up your neighbour and say, "Jim, let's go to Washington and overthrow the government. I'll get my shotgun, you get your Bushmaster." Well, that's not going to cut it. What may cut it is if you organize on a state level and then join with other states and so on and so on. And you need to hold maneuvers and set up camps where you and your likeminded theoretical insurgents can practise roadside bombing, assassination, mortar attacks and suicide driving. There's only so much you can learn by watching the Iraqis do it on TV. Yes, you have freedom of association, but in this present climate, forming a group just for the theoretical purpose of overthrowing a future government is called terrorism. So what you need to do next is to stop the Patriot Act. Go to your representative and tell him you think that domestic terrorism planning by your kind of people is okay but the kind planned by those Ay-rabs is the bad kind. Try and get a law written around that.

3) A successful insurgency requires external support. Gone are the days when one man and his musket was essentially the same as a British grenadier and his musket. (and even then, during the Revolutionary War, French naval support and supplies were necessary to keep the professional army going). Even hillbilly survivalists need to come into town once a year. Your gun needs ammo. The Chechens need funding from madrases in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Iraqis need materiel from the Syrians and Iranians. I actually think the United States has a better base of materiel for an internal insurgency than most countries, but is also extremely reliant on other countries for basics. Fuel, food, critical industrial components. So, you need to start making friends with the Canadians and Mexicans.

Let's say you get over all these hurdles. You win the right to do all these things, plot your fantasy revolution, gather with your buddies and plan the best way to assault Congress and hamstring the U.S. military. And you've taken into account the politicians you have to assassinate, the Federal buildings you have to blow up, the collaborators you have to disappear and the hostages you have to take and execute on TV. And you've bombed lots of industry and the power grid is a disaster.

Now you have to figure out how to topple the government with your brand of terrorism.. oops, I meant popular revolution .. without causing millions to die because the economy shatters and basic human needs go uncared for. And the United States is a bit of a wreck now. What else could happen? Zombies? Marauding bikers?

Now this insurgency is becoming a bit complicated, isn't it? Is that really what you mean by the right to bear arms to overthrow a corrupt government? Isn't engaging in the political process sound a bit easier?

----

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
airchinapilot is offline  
post #7 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 02:10 PM
F1 Driver
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Posts: 8,793
Send a message via AIM to holeydonut
Gun Control: What's your take?

I'm with raitchison (excluding his government overthrowing thing) and npaladin2000 - the current gun laws are doing a great job in keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them responsibily.

It is sad that guns have any use at all - but they definintely have a place for self defense in the US. I loathe to think that what Michael Moore showed in his "Columbine" movie was accurate - but it does seem true that guns are more pervasive and influencial here in the US than in Canada and most of the EU. Trully, I feel that people in the US have an innate fear of the next person.

I have bought two handguns. The first was because I wanted to take up shooting as a hobby. The second was a combination of continuing that hobby while also wanting to feel more safe. Unfortunately, I've taken a lot of flak form people who think that owning a gun means you will commit a crime or injure an innocent. They think that guns are designed to shoot people - so why have a gun? I don't dream of the day that I get to take someone down who is robbing me - but I want to have the option of defending myself legally.

Gun safety and understanding safety are paramount to most gun owners who legally purchase and use their weapon. I think we would all be better off being responsible people than just "sheltered" people who casually remain victims because some people think we're safer if we are kept ignorant and restricted. It really is a "point of view" discussion. I am not a NRA member... I don't know any militia wackos who hang out at gun shows. But, I do feel that those who want to use guns for evil will - and those laws keeping us defenseless only serve to make us better victims.



Until about 3 weeks ago - I had lived in Kansas for many years. Kansas has a very peculiar perspective to guns.

1) You cannot conceal-carry a gun for use in self defense
2) You cannot use a gun to defend your home unless you unload your clip into an armed burgler
3) You can get a gun in 30 minutes if you have a clean record and no criminal history
4) You can get a gun in 30 minutes on the street if you have $150... you can buy bullets at Wal-Mart, sporting shops, pawn shops, or gun shops.

I remember reading a statistic that - on average - about 5% of people in Kansas carried a gun in public illegaly. They based this on the number of reported (and estimated un-reported) situations where someone was found with a gun on ther person or improperly "stored" in their car in Kansas.

I think the statistic is must higher in "gun friendly" states like Texas and Indiana (where I'm at now). I believe the statistic was around 30% for people who had access to a gun in public legally and an additional 5% who had access to a gun in public illegally.

I remember talking to a liberal lawyer who thought that the gun laws in Kansas were not strict enough. They wanted all gun ownership to be restricted and for all gun owners to be registered. Gun licenses would be very expensive and "difficult" to posess. She said that Kansas needs to be as "unlike" Texas as possible. She gave this silly example (but one that most gun haters seem to share):

Quote:
Imagine you're at a sporting event with 60,000. Do you really feel safer knowing that 18,000 of the people around you have a gun on their person? No one should have guns, they are not safe!!
I think, that if there were 60,000 people - and 0 people have guns; then that would be the best. But, it is naive to think that if you make guns illegal - then no one will have guns. I am more scared to think that 3,000 people in a stadium of 60,000 have guns illegally, and that the remaining 57,000 would not be allowed to protect themself from the 3,000 who don't care for the law.

Of course, most stadiums have a strong security prescence, so this is a stupid example. But - what about a town of 120,000 people? Keeping citizens from properly using guns does not prevent the issue of people using guns illegally.

While I see the motive for gun laws - they do not help the people in a safe manner. Simply keeping guns out of the hands of responsible people does not prevent victimization of the population. Instead, the government should take strides to provide education and training for the people. Those who feel "safe" all the time are lucky. You are lucky if your town is Mayberry and you know your safety is scripted forever and you have no threat of violence. However, most of us are not so lucky.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How much of my soul is owned by DaimlerChrysler Financial Services: $ Bunches $
holeydonut is offline  
post #8 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 02:20 PM
F1 Driver
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Posts: 8,793
Send a message via AIM to holeydonut
Re: Your 'Red Dawn' fantasy

Quote:
Originally Posted by "airchinapilot"
The ability to overthrow the government based upon gun ownership is a fantasy.


I just want to go out and state that the "overthrow your government" rationale is not the crutch that most gun advocates use for their argument.

It is true, the preservation of our Constitutional Rights is an important factor that drives us, but few would go so far as to say that they own their guns for the day that they get to take over Washington DC.

I would have to say that most gun owners are either hobbyists and/or people who think they have a right to defend their home and self.

I think keeping guns for miltary coups against the established government ranks about as high as the desire to have guns to defend against mean robots who look like Arnold.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How much of my soul is owned by DaimlerChrysler Financial Services: $ Bunches $
holeydonut is offline  
post #9 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 02:51 PM
F1 Driver
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 10,853
Send a message via AIM to FrostyFire Send a message via MSN to FrostyFire
Gun Control: What's your take?

It's not the fact that the people committing gun crime have licensed guns, they're usually stealing them from licensed owners, and then removing the serial numbers. Point is the guns are freely available to be bought and then stolen by the infidelities.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Current Loves: 2007 Mazda RX8 GT with MazdaSpeed. 2008 Suzuki GSXR750 black/orange 2007 Suzuki GSXR750 track bike
Past loves: 2005 Mazda 3 GT sedan with GFX package
FrostyFire is offline  
post #10 of 44 (permalink) Old 08-07-2004, 02:53 PM
Le Mans: GT Class
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver / Lower Mainland
Posts: 703
Gun Control: What's your take?

Fair enough. I want to try and address the defense against crime argument. In part, this will be a stretch for me because I live in a place where I feel absolutely safe. I have a greater chance of being hurt through a car accident or by eating bad food than from any other threat to my safety. I am more frightened of a natural disaster than a physical assault. So I do not live in a scary place. Maybe some people do. For those people, I have to try and understand their motivation more.

Let's see if I understand this.
1. There is a perceived threat to your person or property in your area through crime that is serious
1a. This threat is very real and the chances of being assaulted or killed is high enough for this fear to be well-founded
2. This is because criminals or others likely to assault you will also have guns or other weapons that can kill you
2a. It is easy for criminals to acquire guns or weapons
2b. Criminals are likely to assault or attempt to kill you with the weapons they have
3. Law enforcement is unable to protect you
3a. because they cannot be everywhere
3b. because criminals do not fear being caught
3c. or if they are caught they do not fear the consequences
4. Carrying or having access to a gun will make you feel more confident and safer and make people more respectful.
5. If everyone had guns or were perceived to have guns, then criminals would be deterred from physically assaulting people in the furtherance of their crimes or would move onto areas where people aren't known to carry guns.
6. There are no better alternatives to defend yourself personally than owning a gun, especially if those likely to hurt you are likely to have guns
7. Even if all guns were somehow eliminated, then criminals (and citizens) would just resort to other weaponry such as knives.
8. Guns are safe in the hands of citizens.

Thereore, because the alternatives are worse, law abiding citizens should have the right to acquire guns to protect themselves, their families and their property.

Is that all correct? Have I left anything out as far as the use of guns as defense against crimes?

----

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
airchinapilot is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  FMVperformance.com : The site for all your Ford Mazda and Volvo needs > Misc > Lounge

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the FMVperformance.com : The site for all your Ford Mazda and Volvo needs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome